| > When the OP (and commenter I was responding to) says "bad", they're referring to the overall experience of using git submodules. Ah, here's the part where things went wrong. I said "what's good or bad", which is not a judgement of the overall experience. It's the same thing as "uses and misuses" from a different angle. Talking about what software is better at and worse at is a good response to "why is it bad?". "No it isn't" is mostly a waste of time, especially when a lot of people have bad experiences. And don't say that the miscommunication is in my mind when you glossed over the word "good" entirely. > By your definition, all software is "bad" By my definition, all software has bad elements and bad contexts. And good ones, too. Asking where those lie is not pedantic or pointless at all. > that doesn't violate the statement that there is "nothing bad" about submodules in the context of this discussion. If an "overall experience" being good enough means that there is "nothing bad", I'm not the one lacking nuance. You've just obliterated nuance. |